Long term deployment in Iraq and other developments

The mission?

Apparently the White House has negotiated an agreement with the government of Iraq concerning long term US troop occupation and the discussions include location of military bases, troop strengths and missions to be accomplished by the occupying force. The mission? Well, that is easy: the President has decided to pledge to the Iraqi’s that the USA will protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup attempts and foreign enemies. In return the Iraqi’s have promised to “encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq--especially American investments--to contribute to the reconstruction and re-building of Iraq.” The promise will be a bonanza for American oil companies.

What is not clear is this: How long do we stay in Iraq? Do we continue the surge and in what form and in what intensity? I would suggest that a long term deployment of U.S. troops does not go hand-in-hand with a long term surge. Why? Because a long term surge is not sustainable.

…we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted…

Why is the Administration negotiating base locations? Given the construction that is underway or complete, it would seem that we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted without any assistance or approval from the Iraqis who happen to be the citizens of the country in question. We are the occupiers and we are building installations where we want them. Maybe the negotiation part of the plan is only propaganda for the American and Iraqi public. Also with the type of bases and installations we are building, I would say our troops might be in Iraq for forty years not four as Secretary Rumsfeld had suggested while still in office. Huge corporations such as Halliburton and KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers have installed massive installations in Iraq with modern conveniences suggesting we are in for the long haul.

Why is forty years or more a possibility? Because we have a penchant for over staying our welcome. For example, we have been in Europe since WWII ended in numbers in excess of 200,000 personnel. We are still in Japan today, and have manned the DMZ in Korea for over fifty years and we are to be found in numerous nations across the globe. Speaking of the DMZ, isn’t it ironic that probably less then 250 people have crossed the DMZ into South Korea in the last 50 years while 12 million plus have crossed our border in less then 50 years? Where are the priorities---South Korea is fully capable of taking care of its own border and we are a total failure along our southern frontier. It is time to leave Korea.

Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?

How do the planners view these deployments in Iraq? Do they see them as strategic enclaves in the event we have to project military forces into a neighboring area? Do they believe these expensive deployments to be part of our anti-terror program—fight ‘em anywhere but in our country? Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?

Also what does the citizenry of the occupied country feel about our presence? I would not want to wake up every morning to see a bunch of armed Iraqi GIs standing around on the street where I live. I would rebel against such an occupation. I predict that we will be very unwelcome in Iraq as time goes by and the festering unhappiness that will build is going to find American soldiers embroiled in trouble.

So, I suggest that we stop spending money to continue building enclaves, find a reasonable draw down schedule and begin to move the troops out leaving only a token force for training and liaison.

Let me tell you what is really happening

But wait! All that I have said so far is not important to the administration. Let me tell you what is really happening. This entire occupation has to do with OIL. The U.S. government would not be doing what it is doing in Iraq if Iraq were a country without OIL. The people of America have no say in this action; it is a White House edict. It is a payoff to big oil.

I can hear my opponents wailing in the background, “But Richard, we need oil to operate our automobiles. My answer: Go to new technology where fossil fuels have no role to play in auto engines. But big oil will not allow that to occur. They have us over a barrel and a barrel costs damn near $100.00. Wake up, America. You’re being taken to the cleaners and wait till you see the bill for occupying Iraq!

As an aside, the recent revelation offered by the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran’s nuclear program is good news and supports the need for a less pressurized environment in Iraq. However, we must be ever cognizant of the Iranian ability to buy nuclear devices from world-traveling and elusive gun runners; this activity is where the real danger lies. But, in the meantime, does reducing the numbers of U.S. military in Iraq seem like such a bad idea? It might even calm Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Couple a reduction of troops with a massive diplomacy effort to try and bring some measure of stability to the Middle East. It might be a softer, gentler way to bring calm in the region

Finally...

..

Finally, I see where Mr. Wolfowitz is returning to a high level position in the State Department. He had his turn and he didn’t do too well—he even screwed up the World Bank job. Can we please find someone with some new fresh ideas and solutions to our problems and let Mr. Wolfowitz go back to academia?

Some help for Uncle Sam?

Mistakes, blunders and miscalculations plague our democracy…

The current administration, well into its second term, is in trouble on many fronts. But this is nothing new because many administrations before this one suffered from comparable problems most of which surfaced due to policies and actions that were foolish and ill conceived. Mistakes, blunders and miscalculations plague our democracy and always will because we have mere “people” running the show.

I am not going to condemn the current administration and the President. He has taken us down the path we currently travel because he believed he was serving the nation. I believe he made a few errors along the way, but he still believes he was/is serving America.

The Democrats are now narrowly in power in congress and they are establishing blockades against the President’s programs. I am not going to condemn them because they also believe they are serving the nation’s best interests. But look at it this way---members from both sides of the aisle are only “people.” They have all the shortcomings found in the human species. They suffer from such human frailties as being arrogant, overbearing, egotistical, don’t tell me what to do, know it all, believe they are always right and act out their decisions with emotion and not necessarily with objectivity. We are all frail; even the so-called smart people---who can be dumb as a poker at times.

The electorate looks on with wonder and amazement at what comes from Washington daily

Both sides are making mistakes fighting the political battle while the electorate desires less corruption, more truth and honesty and good reasoned actions. The electorate looks on with wonder and amazement at what comes from Washington daily.

Why does this happen? Why are mistakes made time and again?

Do bad policy ideas and bad recommendations for action come from the bottom up i.e. from the bureaucracy to the decision maker? Does the decision maker do any thinking and pondering over a course of action and consider its implications before deciding? We know they ponder the issues but often only from a political point of view. For example, does this action fit into the Republican plan or does this action fit into the Democratic plan? The question should be does this action serve America?

Are government mistakes related to exhaustion? Do the leaders, the President, Vice President, the cabinet members and other key officials wear themselves out, especially in the second term, and become so exhausted that they begin to make errors in judgment?

Or could it be that some of our elected leaders are out of their intellectual depth and can’t comprehend situations, courses of action and resulting consequences? As a result they make mistakes.

Or could government mistakes have to do with legacy and the leaders want their place in history and a powerful legacy, which causes them to go over the top in certain situations. Does arrogance and ego kick in as the end of the election term nears and all the mopping up is accomplished?

Or could the corruption be so bad that as all the chits are called in for payment it is natural that actions and events go haywire. The immigration issue is a lingering mess and no one can come up with a clean, comprehensive, doable, fair solution to this problem. Why? Are there reasons strong and powerful that cause congress to move at a snail’s pace on this massive debacle. What chits are being paid off? Who is benefiting? How are they benefiting? What is the damage to our nation and to the people involved?

… I am at a loss in trying to figure out why government, loaded with these people, cannot get it right

Considering all the bright people we have on the planet, I am at a loss in trying to figure out why government, loaded with these people, cannot get it right. Could it be that the system no longer works, or the efficiency of the bureaucracy is in decline or there is no review process and maneuver room to correct errors. Who knows?

Maybe Uncle Sam’s people need help?

The media attacks the government---but gives very little help. The news people are generally adversarial and constantly complain about this or that or he said and she said and so they stir the pot and make the government defensive. When the government becomes defensive it hides facts, lies, schemes and begins to blunder. Yes, the media does uncover scandals and that is a way of keeping government honest---but the news people rarely come up with answers to questions and issues. They are off looking for the next blunder or scandal.

The political pundits constantly talk but offer very few suggestions for improvement. They tend to blow their own horn, look pure, clean, above the fray and so sanctimonious.
The pundits are the intellectuals, the university guys who write books, quote other professors and rarely get involved with the real world. The pundits are also the celebrities---movie stars, athletes and other well known personages. I believe they should have their opportunity to speak---but they rarely have answers—and since they are America’s idols and heroes they are role models and have the attention of millions of people. Why can’t they offer some positive suggestions? In the final analysis they offer little, except such sweeping generalizations as “we need to go into Darfur right now.” I agree, we probably do but give me a fully thought out, comprehensive and reasonable plan for such an action to include the military, political and economic dynamics of such an effort including the exit strategy.

The clearing house would be a whistle blower system

I have an idea about helping Uncle Sam. Let’s form a legitimate, sanctioned, clearing house. I can hear the politicians screaming in the background---it is not in the constitution. Wow—good reason to not try it out.

The clearing house would be a whistle blower system. If it is to work, the whistle blower system including its people must be absolutely untouchable. If whistle blowers are vulnerable to government harassment such as threats of violence or endless tax audits then it will fail.

Open up your mind and let us explore this possibility. The clearing house is an idea wherein a group of bright, concerned citizens are to work with the big boys. We might have 10 people monitoring the DoD and 10 watching State and 10 looking in on the White House etc, etc. The clearing house would permeate the government. It would become the conscience of the government.

How might the clearing house system operate?

Assume the President wants to go to war with Iran. The clearing house team monitors and demands answers on the entire operation and reports as an outside source to the people. No Democrat and no Republican nonsense---in other words no politics just down-the-middle American citizens asking all the right questions about going to war and informing America about the intelligence, the threat and the rationale for the decision. And the government, if it wants to be helped, will give this body of independent people all the facts concerning this proposed war. The clearing house then passes judgment on the government’s plan and tells the citizens how it feels about the President’s perceived need to go to war.

Imagine if Uncle Sam decides to not cooperate and the clearing house blows the whistle and makes known to the public the government’s non cooperative attitude. The public will react against the government immediately.

I can hear the political parties saying, “But that is the reason for the two party system and we are doing today what you want the clearing house to do.” My answer is---no you are not. You are playing politics on every issue and on every situation and action. That is a major reason that it takes months and years for action when action could be taken in days. Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have failed and they continue to fail because they do not see the problems of America as problems that need to be solved for the greater good of the country.

The truth is that all politicians are biased and beholden to someone

The truth is that all politicians are biased and beholden to someone. Therefore they are not acting in the best and highest good of the people and the nation. They are acting for their own good or for a small number of Americans.

A clearing house, a whistle blower, a national conscience, it might work—especially if one adds this to the equation:

Should it be found that any member of government acted to mislead or occlude the clearing house, that member's personal immunity would have been pierced in so doing and he or she would be personally liable.

The Business of Intelligence

Rarely do outsiders recognize the hard work involved...

I am always surprised at how the word intelligence generates intrigue among people. Some folks see glamour, glory, an evil aura, sinister settings, sex, money and mystery in the term and all that it is and all that it means or suggests. Rarely do outsiders recognize the hard work involved in generating a first class, accurate and useful intelligence estimate. They see the final product as an aftermath, a conclusion, stark and cold detached from what they feel is all the glamour that went into its creation.

The intelligence business is not easy and is not especially glamorous. It consists of difficult work, constant review, comparison, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, extrapolation, and correction. The analyst is constantly involved in updates and making sense out of the irrational and finally reaching a decision on the weight of the evidence.

We should not skimp in the budgeting process when it comes to intelligence organizations

The President of the United States has a far-flung intelligence empire at his finger tips. He relies on this mechanism--this structure--to give him the latest and best view of the capabilities of potential enemies of America. He asks for and gets details and ideas from his intelligence people. And from what they pass to him and from what he gleans from their material, he makes decisions that move the nation. He decides what short term actions to take, or what planning to set in motion or long term strategies to undertake. He signals the machinery of the government to get to action, new diplomatic initiatives, economic efforts to strengthen an alliance somewhere in the world and the very serious decision to go to war when we are threatened.

Intelligence tips the scale of the decision making process and so it is in our best interest, the citizens of this country, that the president has available to him the best intelligence possible to avoid tragic and costly mistakes. We should not skimp in the budgeting process when it comes to intelligence organizations. But we must also demand good solid management and cost effective policies to conserve assets and funds. And if such policies are not operative we should relieve those responsible for the failure.

I am amazed that we have an intelligence service as good as the one that currently exists

Since the intelligence business carries so much baggage---or at least rumors of dirty baggage---dirty tricks, assassinations, subversion, sabotage, insurgencies and more, it is a hot item for review. The people on Capital Hill in Washington want a piece of this thing called intelligence. They want to know what our collection agencies are doing, how they are doing it, when and where they are doing it and is whatever they are doing the right thing to be doing?

Under near constant scrutiny, how does the government run a secret agency that is victim of all the above plus the constant review and reporting of stories some true some totally false from the press? I am amazed that we have an intelligence service as good as the one that currently exists.

I want and every citizen should want the intelligence apparatus preserved. It should be highly effective, managed by professionals, in service to the nation, using every source of information to reach sound and accurate conclusions.

At the same time I want balance. I want an intelligence apparatus that serves the nation and is partnered with the people of America. I do not want an intelligence service that victimizes our citizens or the citizens of any nation. I want a service that is designed to protect our shores, that works and teams with other agencies of government, shares information with those agencies---not a stand alone, smug, elitist group of eastern establishment intellectuals. I want balance! And, finally I want an intelligence service that uses all the disciplines of the intelligence industry from the most sophisticated technology to the down and dirty spy who is paid for spying in order to make the United States of America a safe place. I want a service that can cleanse itself with counterintelligence measures and protective shields to root out and get rid of traitors in the system. I want a purity of purpose and a pride in performance---even when we use all the tools available to us---including the dirty tools. Why---because in this era of terrorism the game is clear---the enemy is ruthless, he cuts off heads. We are not playing a game here and we must use every asset we can find to protect ourselves.

Let us review

The state of the union speech suggested …

There has been a massive amount of activity within the government and the administration over the past several weeks and it is time for a review to determine if any progress has resulted. I am going to come at the situation with some commons sense ideas—and not as a democrat or a republican.

The state of the union speech suggested that the President is holding strong to the view of sending in another 20,000 troops to quell the factional warring in Iraq. In fact, the troops are now on station. The Commander and Chief has put congress in a tough spot—even though the democrats hint that they will withhold the funding to support this effort in the long term, they probably cannot really take such action. They fear that the American public would see them in a situation of non support of the troops. This is not a good place to be politically. So the funding will probably be there and the deployment will complete and we will lose more youngsters in the civil war in Iraq.

Is it apparent that politics and political agendas come before common sense and responsible action? Why do we continually lose sight of the goal? And the goal is to quell terrorism, but how?

Iraq and Terrorism in America

Does Iraq have anything to do with terrorism penetrating our shores? Five years ago it probably had very little if anything to do with terrorism in America. What about today? With the fire we have built in the Middle East through our actions in Iraq, I am afraid that we have stoked the embers of terrorism beyond even the expectation of the terrorist factions. The entire region could blow up leading to major issues and we may have caused such conditions to develop and exist through our irresponsible action by invading Iraq.

I have decided that I am going to stop complaining about the situation. I am simply going to state some ideas that I have offered before and that still seem legitimate to me.

Let us get to the bottom of this situation…

The situation in Iraq finds us caught in the midst of a civil war. It is true that some of the combatants are criminals and thugs but essentially it is Sunnis and Shiites battling each other for control.

Let us get to the bottom of this situation by asking---what is it that they are trying to control? Could it be that the warring factions are vying for position to take control of a “new government” beyond the one in place? Could it be that such control would allow the nationalization of the oil industry and the faction in power would benefit from the oil production? It makes common sense to me and so I am going to adopt the idea.


By inaction the government has marginalized every Iraqi citizen…

In an earlier writing I suggested that the Alaska model be imposed in Iraq---which means get the oil industry moving and pay every citizen a stipend from the oil revenues. But the current government either cannot or will not turn this solution to action. By inaction the government has marginalized every Iraqi citizen and said to them “no oil money for you.”

So what is likely to occur? Someone will rise to the top of the heap, and I have very little confidence that it will be the government currently in power---because I don’t believe they are in power at all. They show very little leadership and no solutions to existing problems. They have rigor mortis.

I believe that President Malaki and his colleagues are waiting for the “other shoe to drop.” The other shoe being “who will be the last man standing.” Once that is sorted out and a strong man is identified, they (Malaki and his people) will join with the victorious rebellious leader. But there is a danger in this scenario for the current government---the strongman may take out Malaki and his regime. In any case, once the real leader emerges and takes power the game will begin.

What is the game?

Oil is the game!

Oil will flow from the wells and cash will flow and the government in place will benefit and the common man will miss out on the entire show. It will be back to normal in Iraq and all of our attempts at rescuing this country and bringing democracy to it will fail. Why? The Iraqi’s are not culturally ready for democracy and all of its complex machinations. They don’t have the foggiest notion as to what it means, can’t get their arms around it, democracy is not culturally in tune with life in Iraq--plain and simple--it is a square peg in a round hole.

Why did the modern day whiz kids not see this coming—the big thinkers in Defense and State and the White House? They didn’t want to see it because their arrogance and righteousness caused them to believe that everyone loves the “American model” and that includes the Iraqis.

“Too pushy”

I recently traveled by cab from O’Hare airport to downtown Chicago and the taxi driver was from Jordon. He was a very articulate man and had earned a master’s degree from a prominent American University. He came off as a very bright man and he had an opinion about us Americans.

He simply said America is “Too pushy.” He said, “We Jordanians love the King of Jordon---we have loved him and his predecessors for many, many years. We don’t need democracy; we simply need a strong, just King.”

Sounds like the 1960s and Vietnam…

My call to the administration is---come home America they don’t want our help. Come home America and let us begin to solve our own problems. The administration’s answer to that is if we retreat from the Middle East we might find ourselves fighting terrorism at home. Sounds like the 1960s and Vietnam. The US Government and its whiz kids of that era had the fixation that if we abandoned Vietnam everything would come unglued. They insisted that if we left South East Asia that Cambodia, Laos, Thailand maybe even Indonesia would go communist.

Did it happen? No.

We are giving too much power and too much expertise to the international terrorists. They are simply not as good as we make them out to be. But, there is another problem and let me remind you folks in the administration that we already have terrorism at home. It is going on all around us primarily in our population centers. It is the gang phenomenon where gangs terrorize neighborhoods, fight for turf and the control of drug distribution systems. This form of terrorism is as bad as that found in troubled sectors of Baghdad. But the administration would prefer to fix Iraq rather than fix New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The blogger and Uncle Sam

Let’s play a game for a moment and generate some questions and answers between the blogger and Uncle Sam.

First the blog writer:

How would the administration respond to the idea of it attacking and destroying terrorism in our streets idea?

The administration would say:

You don’t understand Mr. Blog Writer---we are talking about international 9-11 style terrorism.

I would say:

Come home and fight international terrorism from our shores through political, diplomatic, economic actions as well as vastly improved intelligence efforts.

Spend the next 94 billion dollars on re-building a worldwide human intelligence system and training a Special Forces team in the military that can defeat an enemy like those found in Iraq today.

The administration would say:

Get out of the Iraqi?

I would say:

Discover and shut down terrorist bank accounts. Discover who funds terrorism and don’t be too surprised when you find it to be a nation that acts friendly on the surface (they sell us a lot of oil) and behind our backs finance terrorists to kill us.

Uncle Sam’s response would be:

We can’t do that it would upset the international apple cart.

The blogger would immediately ask:

What international apple cart---is it the one full of oil? Are there under-the-table deals cooking that would be impacted if we would begin to tell the truth about our so called allies?


The Iraqi government is not our friend…

Remember just a few weeks ago that one single powerful general the Iraqi government appointed to finish off the war?

Have we ever heard of him again?

Was he appointed?

Did he and our new guy meet yet in Baghdad to develop a strategy?

Or did this newly appointed guy fade away?”

I go back to an earlier blog I wrote: “The Iraqi government is not our friend.” We are being strung out and they are holding on for dear life to benefit later from black gold.

Until we take some of the actions listed above, I will say to you again we are not at war with terrorism. We are playing a game and we are not serious about any of this business.”

We need to try common sense and see where it takes us.

An historical lesson for the United States of America

They are standing on a rocky road…

The picture above shows soldiers, both young and into their mid-life, on high ground along a mountain road on the Pakistani side of the Khyber Pass. They are probably tired, both physically and emotionally, from the long grinding war. They are concerned about their wives and children, their country, their property and their future. Note that they are taking time out for God. They have an undying faith and they are resilient in the face of tough challenges. They have removed their foot-wear in honor of God. They are standing on a rocky road--shoeless--with makeshift prayer blankets spread out in front of them so they can bow deeply in their ritual to their God.

There were about two hundred of them; dirty, cold, maybe a little hungry, in civilian clothes some wearing shoes made from rubber tires. It was late October and the wind was blowing and the air was fresh and cold. They saw us struggling up the steep road in an old, beat up little car finally reaching the flat place. As I got out of the rickety, oil belching machine they cheered and ran to me and surrounded me wanting to shake hands or make contact in some way.

What the picture does not show…

What the picture does not show is that behind the scenes in every village and town there are legions of people supporting these fighters in every way possible. The weary fighters shown here have the help of collaborators and supporters of all ages from children to the very old, both male and female.

It is that backup support that makes it nearly impossible for a country to be over-run and held in bondage forever. Recent history will bear this out---Japan and Korea, Nazi Germany and Western Europe, the USSR and Eastern Europe, and the colonists who held India and a variety of African nations. Be they invaders with war as their tool or colonists with economics holding the power, it matters not---they will all be forced out.

I asked myself, what made them tough, what gave them courage, what motivated these rag-tag guerillas to stand up against the Soviet army? Could they succeed? What special talents did they possess? What were their tactics and their operational procedures? The following are some of my observations on these questions.

My wife grew up on a family farm in Kansas…

It seems to me that rural people and people of the land are tough. Farmers who work the soil and tend to livestock, out in the weather, up early, planting, harvesting, watching nature and relying on things natural everyday are a grounded strong breed of humans. My wife grew up on a family farm in Kansas. Like her siblings she was given daily chores to perform as a child. They were simple tasks at first and more difficult and physically challenging and important as she grew older and stronger.

As a family member, she felt family ownership of the property and she felt pride in her accomplishments. This made her strong and even courageous. If some outside force attempted to uproot her mother, father, brothers and this little girl from the farm, it would have been resisted. They were devoted to the ground they lived on. They were connected to it and it belonged to the family.

Sun Zu, in his book the Art of War…

What does a Kansas farm have to do with the toughness and resilience of the Afghan fighter? The Afghan rebels who opposed and drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan knew their land. They knew their home and their culture and their religion and their property and it was that sense of rivers, mountains, villages and hamlets and earth that brought them courage and dedication.

Sun Zu, in his book the Art of War written a couple of thousand years ago, made the following point. It is very difficult to invade a foreign land and hold on to that land over a protracted period. The indigenous population will constantly dream up ways to oust the invaders and at some point they will find the power, resolve and method to do so.

Sun Zu also said that there is an easy way to raise up a powerful army. When a threat has been detected along the border and invasion is imminent, he suggested calling all the farmers and landholders to a meeting and telling them of the threat. They are told that if the invaders succeed that everyone’s land will be confiscated, animals taken, rice paddies, wives and children taken and nothing will be left and they will be killed. Such a message will cause a man to fight to the death because there is no other alternative.

… the freedom fighters in Afghanistan came right out of Sun Zu’s book

I believe that a message like the one described by Sun Zu was passed to the Afghan freedom fighters by some very wise leader. In fact, the freedom fighters in Afghanistan came right out of Sun Zu’s book. They decided to become a fast moving guerrilla/terrorist force. You can compare them to a boxer with short arms facing an opponent with long arms. The guy with short arms must get “close” to the opponent and pound away at him with body blows, shots at the kidney and the convenient powerful uppercut. The guerrilla must get very close to his enemy in warfare and hit at him from close proximity.

The guerilla must ask the indigenous population for support. Intelligence support should be first on the list. The Afghans had superb intelligence because the entire country was supporting the rebels and more then willing to report to the rebels all Soviet plans, movement and activities. The local population was in close and actually among the Soviets collecting information all the time. But the civilian population suffered from this practice as the Soviets burned villages and murdered people in an attempt to stop the flow of information. Yet the Afghans would not give up and this courage and dedication is a very powerful asset and it actually spurs the underdog on.

The key to this tactic of getting in close is to do all the damage possible and get out quickly avoiding the air and artillery support that will be called for and will come. The Afghans cached weapons everywhere around the countryside allowing them to move quickly without the burden of carrying the weapons. They picked up weapons and ammunition near the point of combat and right under the nose of their enemies.

Let me ask you…

The Afghans created fear. They got into the Soviet’s brains by attacking them at night, withdrawing and disappearing quickly, showing up where least expected, fighting with terrorist tactics and avoiding head on engagements. The psychological impact of this tactic repeated successfully time and again can become a frightening scenario.

The Afghans wore the Soviets out. They finally delivered the knock out punch when they used the stinger missile to take out the soviet attack helicopter.

In the final analysis the Afghan rebels showed the world that a bunch of farmers and city folks working together with a cause and a fearless attitude can defeat a super power.

Let me ask you, does this very recent event hold any historical lessons for the United States of America?

The End Game

...the end game in the conflict in Iraq is a troublesome...

In a recent speech, I mentioned that the end game in the conflict in Iraq is a troublesome, elusive phenomenon. It has not been identified, quantified or described and apparently no one knows what it is. My question is how do we win---or maybe my question should be how do we lose? What does it mean to win? What does it look like to win?

The last time I talked about this issue I said, WWII ended with the signing of a declaration of unconditional surrender by the Emperor of Japan on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. I want to know---what terrorist will sign a document of surrender for all terrorists? Does anyone beside me see a problem here?

Interestingly, the President mentioned the USS Missouri and the WWII ending ceremony in his speech but he gave it no further attention. I have some advice for the President and his administration. Find out what it means to win in Iraq. Outline it to the people of this country. Then set out with all Americans to get the job done---the job you and the public agree to. That is the one and only way we will get out of this mess.

If you choose to avoid defining success and describing victory then again I must ask, Sir, how does this war end---can 21,500 additional troops, and a few tactical changes, and deeper involvement with the Iraqi government end it? The answer is a resounding, "No", because we don’t know what ending it means. We don’t know what victory looks like in this very peculiar war we are involved in. Please, Mr. President, find the definition of success and go for it and let’s be done with this mess in no more then six months to a year.

The Iraqis claim to have eighteen brigade equivalents of police and military trained and ready to go.

The President’s idea is to have the Iraqis appoint a new powerful Iraqi general who will run the war. The Iraqis claim to have eighteen brigade equivalents of police and military trained and ready to go. I doubt it. Next the plan involves turning over the combat to the Iraqi military and police, embed US Forces with them and go into the neighborhoods and roust out the terrorists. Do I believe that the Sunni military are going to kill Sunni terrorists---no!

Next we are to stay in those neighborhoods and make certain the residents remain calm. I wonder how many years we will devote to neighborhood watch. I say let the Iraqis keep the peace in their neighborhoods.

And are we planning to meet with the most contentious regimes in the area...

The President also said this is not only a military offensive but a diplomatic and economic offensive as well. We are to meet with powers in the region and work out some of the diplomatic issues. Really? And why have we not done this before now? And are we planning to meet with the most contentious regimes in the area---Syria and Iran? If not, why not? And if we don’t have the guts to meet with them, how will we ever fix this crazy region of the world.

What about some of the economic plans mentioned by the President. I recently commented about the Alaska oil model of dividing oil revenues in that state between all the citizens of Alaska. The President mentioned that it is now planned that all Iraqi citizens will share in the oil revenues. Just a few short months ago this initiative was tabled by the Iraqi government. I wonder---was the Alaska oil model a bargaining chip to insure the deployment of the additional US troops? Of course, it was!

My concern is in six months to a year how many more troops will it take to get some real action from the Iraqis with regard to oil revenue sharing? Another 20,000? When will we require a final determination? Will it take all the infighting between the tribes to stop before a decision is made to share oil money? So, is the end game to take place in this century or the next?

The President also said that the Iraqi government will commence a massive infrastructure development program. That is an interesting idea and why was it not pushed earlier?

Now let me get to what is really bugging me

Now let me get to what is really bugging me. Let me tell you there is a second reason why we cannot win in Iraq. It is a reason that no diplomat can utter because it is, heaven forbid, politically incorrect. But someone needs to say it and here it comes.

To deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will make absolutely no difference to the situation. The reason is that the President’s plan places new, difficult and heavy responsibilities on the Iraqi government. And I do not believe the Iraqi government will perform. The problem is, the duly elected government of Iraq is not prepared to take on these burdens. They are inept. Furthermore they have been cheating and scheming behind our backs, undermining our activities and actually restricting our operations in the capital and in the countryside.

Mark my words---the Iraqi government is not our friend and this will not change. They are not to be trusted.

How about this as a test? Let’s watch the clock and count the days as they pass by without any infrastructure development in Iraq by the government. Also, let us watch time tick away while the Iraqis try to figure out how to pay every citizen an oil related stipend. It will not happen and that will be the test that tells us the Iraqis are blowing smoke up through the Washington Monument.

...did I hear the President say he was going to find more troops?

And last but not least---did I hear the President say he was going to find more troops? If he said it, is he on the brink of reinstating the draft? Now that would be a political bomb that would end the war—because the American public would come to life in total rebellion against a draft.

I don’t purport to know what the final answer is to this mess, but what we are now about to do "ain’t gonna work".

Iraqi Oil

According to Steve Forbes...

In the November 13, 2006 issue of the Forbes magazine Steve Forbes, the Editor In Chief, has offered a very sensible “Fact and Comment” article concerning Iraq. In part he said, “In September Iraq’s political leaders agreed to postpone until 2008 any moves to “carve up” the country into autonomous states. The principal reason for the delay was the ever divisive question of who would control the country’s immense oil wealth. Most of the oilfields fall in Kurdish and Shiite areas. The Sunnis are afraid that regional autonomy will mean they will be bereft of their share of the black gold.”

Mr. Forbes goes on discussing the Alaska solution: “About a quarter of Alaska’s oil and gas royalties goes into an entity called the Permanent Fund, the assets of which are managed by investment professionals. About half the revenue stream is distributed to the state’s citizens each year; the remainder is reinvested. The Alaska approach has two powerful advantages. Virtually the entire Iraq population would have a stake in making sure insurgents didn’t disrupt oil production, and almost every Iraqi would have an incentive to have a bona fide address at which to collect the checks. This would be a great boon to security.”

He went on to say, “Our patience with Iraq is not infinite. The Iraqi government's recent statement that it won't crack down on local militias, and its reluctance to clean out the multiplying death squads infesting its police forces, are the latest examples of a regime failing to acknowledge that we are not going to be there forever.”

But I believe there are some underlying factors that contribute to the civil war currently in progress

Mr. Forbes' comments make perfectly good sense to me. All Iraqis are concerned about how they will live if and when things settle down (i.e. the civil war ends). But I believe there are some underlying factors that contribute to the civil war currently in progress. The real question is---who will come out on top? Who will be privileged? Who will become wealthy and who will suffer?

If there is a way to generate cash for everyone, it could possibly stop the civil war and be the exact solution needed. Everyone will have a hand in it and be motivated to protect the oil production fields and its infrastructure, so it could work.

...the ongoing struggle in Iraq (the civil war) is all about who will eventually rise to the top

Native American tribes that have developed successful casinos have a system of sharing profits and proceeds with members of the tribe. It is working for the greater benefit so why not try this system with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Let me tell you why---the ongoing struggle in Iraq (the civil war) is all about who will eventually rise to the top. It is about several aspiring despots testing the waters, shoving, pushing looking for weak spots in their opponent’s armor with the ultimate goal of taking over everything. Someone will make it to the top and the “in place government” will be gone.

However, let us get “out of the box” and think this one through at a slightly deeper level. Is it possible that the in-place government is also involved (silently) in the civil war? If not, then why did that very same government set aside a perfectly good solution, the so called divisive issue of carving up the country into autonomous regions? Why did they not go to the people and tell them of this option? Why did they not consider a referendum on this issue? Tell me America, who is the duly elected government siding with, and who is siding with the government and more importantly to what end?

The fly in the ointment might be the Kurds

Below all the issues of the ongoing civil war lies the foundational reason, the bottom line rationale for the war. And that underlying issue is greed and control. Those are the factors that are driving the war---selfish greed and an insatiable need for the power to control the entire nation and its oil reserves.

The fly in the ointment might be the Kurds. They continue to gain economic strength, enjoy relative peace and calm in their region and slow but sure control of their oilfields. Might they become so powerful that they will set the model for Iraq? That model would be something like the Alaska model that Mr. Forbes has so eloquently described. The progress of the Kurds could be very positive.

Goodbye Saddam and hello to the development of autonomous regions and the division of oil revenues to the people

As a private citizen and an observer of events, I believe the US Government must push the Alaska/Kurd model. I don’t mean give the Iraqi government another boring power point briefing about what the Alaska idea can do for them. What I am talking about is a set of tough, saber tooth lined, demands that this idea be implemented within six months and if not we are leaving town. And while the government is being educated we must also bring the solution to the attention of the general population. Turn on the public information system and let them know that such a solution does exist so they can get involved. It is time for Uncle Sam to kick some behind.

This solution involves real living people with something at stake---their piece of the oil revenues. This total involvement will enhance security and we will see if the Iraqi man on the street can impact his world if given the opportunity. If he cannot change his world, no outsider (American) can do it for him.

Goodbye Saddam and hello to the development of autonomous regions and the division of oil revenues to the people.